{"title":"Cost-Benefit analysis of urban nature-based solutions: A systematic review of approaches and scales with a focus on benefit valuation","authors":"Alessia Chelli , Luke Brander , Davide Geneletti","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Urban nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly recognized as an effective strategy to address urban sustainability challenges. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely used method for assessing the economic feasibility of NBS interventions and supporting decision-makers in comparing different investment alternatives. Performing a CBA, however, is complex and requires making methodological choices and assumptions, such as choosing the discount rate and the temporal horizon, which can significantly affect the outcome estimates. Moreover, the inclusion of the full range of costs and benefits can be challenging due to difficulties and uncertainties in estimating their monetary value and accounting for their spatial and temporal dynamics. The objective of this research is to critically analyze current applications of CBA on urban NBS in the scientific literature, identifying trends, limitations, and research gaps. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic review of articles published between 2000 and 2022, resulting in 114 observations of CBAs for urban NBS. The review compared CBA approaches and scales, focusing on the monetary valuation of costs and benefits, as well as the spatial and temporal dynamics of benefits. Our results indicate a predominance of CBAs with a social, as opposed to private, perspective, and with a focus on building solutions and small-scale NBS interventions. Moreover, we found a general lack of consideration for environmental externalities among the costs, and an incomplete inclusion of the full range of benefits, often due to difficulties in estimating their monetary values. We also found that CBA studies usually do not consider the variability in NBS performance over time. Finally, most studies reported a positive CBA outcome, suggesting that NBS are generally economically advantageous.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"71 ","pages":"Article 101684"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000913","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Urban nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly recognized as an effective strategy to address urban sustainability challenges. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely used method for assessing the economic feasibility of NBS interventions and supporting decision-makers in comparing different investment alternatives. Performing a CBA, however, is complex and requires making methodological choices and assumptions, such as choosing the discount rate and the temporal horizon, which can significantly affect the outcome estimates. Moreover, the inclusion of the full range of costs and benefits can be challenging due to difficulties and uncertainties in estimating their monetary value and accounting for their spatial and temporal dynamics. The objective of this research is to critically analyze current applications of CBA on urban NBS in the scientific literature, identifying trends, limitations, and research gaps. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic review of articles published between 2000 and 2022, resulting in 114 observations of CBAs for urban NBS. The review compared CBA approaches and scales, focusing on the monetary valuation of costs and benefits, as well as the spatial and temporal dynamics of benefits. Our results indicate a predominance of CBAs with a social, as opposed to private, perspective, and with a focus on building solutions and small-scale NBS interventions. Moreover, we found a general lack of consideration for environmental externalities among the costs, and an incomplete inclusion of the full range of benefits, often due to difficulties in estimating their monetary values. We also found that CBA studies usually do not consider the variability in NBS performance over time. Finally, most studies reported a positive CBA outcome, suggesting that NBS are generally economically advantageous.
期刊介绍:
Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly.
Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.